Re: [PATCH] configure.in.in

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>]

>> If a person wants the history, they can use the initial checkin comment to
>> go to the other file and its history.

It isn't that simple.  What I usually need to do is compare the
differences between the code in two revisions, and doing that across
two files without history is a pain in the ass.

>I'm more than happy to do it Ben's way; it's easier and safer. I
>always shudder when attempting to muck with actual repository files.
>But, the group consensus earlier was to do it the way I described; has
>it changed?

If a file has meaningful history, every effort should be made to retain
that history across the move.  Among other things, it documents the
source of the code.  But for something like configure.in, which has
no meaningful history, I don't think anyone would care either way.

....Roy

Re: [PATCH] configure.in.in

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

"Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> 
> >> If a person wants the history, they can use the initial checkin comment to
> >> go to the other file and its history.
> 
> It isn't that simple.  What I usually need to do is compare the
> differences between the code in two revisions, and doing that across
> two files without history is a pain in the ass.

I can certainly sympathise with that, but my primary aim is to make it
so that if I "rewind time" with CVS, then time is rewound correctly.
That means that comparing versions across the rename boundary is a pain
(but not a huge one - check out the tree twice and use diff).

Cheers,

Ben.

--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi